Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Is democracy really the problem?

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 19, 2008, 11:07:36 AM
Quote
Spending time on the internet and giving to charities is not "action" either.

Get real people. Listening to Burzum and talking about spirit isn't going to change anything. Like every thread on here, this one has gotten dragged into bullshit that is totally irrelevant.


Actually, if people took the time they spent on the internet, and used it to organize something, they would get somewhere.

The internet is a medium like anything else. What you're saying is: spending time making television commercials won't get you anywhere.

The communalist movements so far have all failed. Let's analyze: failure to create their own economies, problems finding people to run them, internal frictions.

The solution is obvious. Get everyone on the same page, including through the internet, as written here. Then take real world political action.

So far every communalist movement I've known has failed blatantly, and every one of them went down in flames while telling the rest of us what we were doing wasn't real.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 19, 2008, 01:00:22 PM
I (obviously) also use the internet for propaganda activities, but I'm not fooling myself by pretending that this constitutes meaningful deeds.

For this reason, I also dissent in that I think large scale promotional activities should be done in tandem with personal action.

The internet organization shouldn't necessarily come first. I simply foresee many people using this reasoning as an excuse to wait until it's too late to start building real skills. In general, action isn't effective without simultaneous criticism of a undesirable target system of thought. A balance is needed, and I see many people not maintaining this balance, or simply not bothering at all.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 21, 2008, 03:05:42 PM
Quote

Actually, if people took the time they spent on the internet, and used it to organize something, they would get somewhere.

The internet is a medium like anything else. What you're saying is: spending time making television commercials won't get you anywhere.


No, I'm not saying any medium is a waste of time, I'm referring to the particular medium of the Internet, which is not suitable for this purpose. If these people used television channels that would be better, but as far as the Internet goes for "activism" I see it as a waste of time that will go nowhere. People will not spend organized time online, whereas terrestrial TV has only a select number of channels for people (I have a choice of 6) and would be practically forced to listen to a few viewpoints.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 22, 2008, 12:57:14 AM
Quote
I (obviously) also use the internet for propaganda activities, but I'm not fooling myself by pretending that this constitutes meaningful deeds.

For this reason, I also dissent in that I think large scale promotional activities should be done in tandem with personal action.

The internet organization shouldn't necessarily come first. I simply foresee many people using this reasoning as an excuse to wait until it's too late to start building real skills. In general, action isn't effective without simultaneous criticism of a undesirable target system of thought. A balance is needed, and I see many people not maintaining this balance, or simply not bothering at all.


Let's not organize. We'll just rush in.

People use anything as an excuse, and it's no excuse for avoiding it.

A balance is needed, and most people don't maintain it -- maybe it's because they're dysfunctional, not the method?

In 1776, they used newspapers. Now we have the internet. What we need to do is build consensus, by any means necessary.

Calls to "local action" always end up with a few people doing something they think is important, and failing to make the kind of political change we need. They're taking local action in their bedrooms.

Another way to put this: we live in a civilization of millions, and these people are made to act by remote means, like memes in newspapers and television and on the internet.

We need to get the meme out to those who can hear it, and right now this requires internet activity. Claiming that such action is somehow "not action" means you've been fooled by the fakers into thinking everyone is a faker.

Look at dailykos.org, or moveon.com, or ronpaul2008.com -- these are people making real change through the internet. Their candidates would be unknown otherwise. Our task is more complicated, so we start with the internet and then move on.

Going disorganized into any task is a very poor idea, as is having people ignorant of their options. I see a lot of people come in here and say "Internet activity is not real activity" like they're the genius of the fucking moment for thinking of it. And what do they do? We never read about their successes.

Something to think about.

MLK

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 24, 2008, 10:01:04 PM
Quote
As well as playing in a band, I spend up to 2 months per year (full 60 days) teaching people survival in the wild. Everyone comes back changed, with skills to build themselves accommodation, to hunting and seeking food, climbing difficult terrain, keeping active in harsh conditions etc, with good fun thrown in, like games for people to play once they have successfully built a boat or skied to a specific point with their handmade skis.

Someone who thinks they are helping out by wasting resources online for hours all week and helping some charity who usually end up spending the money on new chairs is fooling themselves. And "campaigning" to regulars does not help get new people involved (and no I am not new, I've been here for a long time for the metal element, not the idiots who read a Nietzsche book and think they are "nihilists" while still posting away the pointless rubbish on here). Do something with an impact. None of this secondary nonsense leaving the rest of us to do things while you "help out". I think that is the main problem with democracy. People are too stupid to choose what they want with any sort of sense. And those who want to rebel from this read books by philosophers and just emulate their way of thinking, instead of developing their own, and become part of obscure groups that never expand yet never die, making them just more pointless sheep. If you want to defeat democracy, go do something.

I'd say the internet is not quite as useless as you suggest but I do otherwise agree with you. I think the relative success of Ron Paul in the US recently has proved that internet activism actually does get you somewhere, when you're denied a voice by mainstream media (television, radio), which its fair to say anyone who criticises the present establishment is (need only look to the Irish media's bias towards the blatantly corrupt leadership here). The extent to which tv and radio glean their material from the internet is increasing also.

The problem with activism confined only to the internet is that unless you're working on a tangible, real world front as well you aren't presenting people with a real alternative to make in their lives and so are just contributing to that growing fantasy world that is the internet.

If you want to defeat the stagnation of the present time (which is what democracy ultimately embodies) do something that counters stagnation; do something that's adventurous, bold, strikes to the heart of the tedium by going beyond it, whether thats art, survivalism, spontaneous vigilantism or gardening.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 24, 2008, 10:08:20 PM
Quote
If you want to defeat the stagnation of the present time (which is what democracy ultimately embodies) do something that counters stagnation; do something that's adventurous, bold, strikes to the heart of the tedium by going beyond it, whether thats art, survivalism, spontaneous vigilantism or gardening.


Fight individualism with individualism. Brilliant.

Both of you miss the point entirely.


MLK

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 24, 2008, 10:20:04 PM
Quote

Fight individualism with individualism. Brilliant.

Both of you miss the point entirely.


No, fight individualism and the rest of the modern rot by promoting the things that actually have meaning. promote those things that actually foster sane life values and outlook.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 26, 2008, 01:17:30 PM
Democracy, wikipedia, ARE YOU TALKIN TO ME?, Capitalism, Christianity... aren't these all manifestations of the same basic idea, which is that the individual should be more important than reality?

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
January 28, 2008, 10:06:41 PM
Quote
In 1776, they used newspapers. Now we have the internet. What we need to do is build consensus, by any means necessary.

The internet may be full of trash, but so is every other form of mass communication.  Obviously, mass communication is what we need when there are 7 billion people and we'd like to reach some small subset.  Does anyone here have the fortune necessary to start a new TV/radio station or newspaper to get our message across?

To shun the most powerful and currently least regulated communication medium in the history of human civilization, seems very counterproductive.

Whatever the goal, the best consensus to build at this point is taking words and plans off-line and into the world in organized groups, as large as possible.  Then only people who actually want change are present, but they are also more likely to act if someone else is watching over their shoulder.

It's critical that such groups meet regularly and be well-documented with pictures, video, and/or articles, which attracts more people to the group and so on.  One partially valid "excuse" is travel expenses to a central location, which could be offset by a flat fee.  It might sound lazy, but actually it's efficiency: people want to pay X dollars, receive their ticket or confirmation, and then mark the date on their calendar.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
February 02, 2008, 03:09:49 PM
Quote
To shun the most powerful and currently least regulated communication medium in the history of human civilization, seems very counterproductive.


I work with a local green group whose goal is to remove trash and plant trees.

It is unbelievable how complicated people make that process, only because they are personally dysfunctional.

The same kind of criticism shows up here every time someone suggests a way of actually making change.

I've come to realize that most "activists" don't want to win and make change. They want a hobby.

In the same way, people here want to keep whining on metal boards and insulting good bands while praising crap they listen to because it's convenient. They don't want to do anything about the situation as a whole -- too inconvenient. Their intuition is a slave to their materialist, egomaniac desire to be isolated from all else.

It's a suicidal, fatalistic, impotent and above all boring outlook.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
February 03, 2008, 12:08:54 AM
Quote

I work with a local green group whose goal is to remove trash and plant trees.

---

I've come to realize that most "activists" don't want to win and make change. They want a hobby.


By mopping the floor while the sink continues to overflow, you're relegating your volunteer work to that very status. Attack the source of the problem instead. I'm planning on meeting with my congressman during the upcoming recess to discuss the issue of overpopulation, among other related events. It's probably more exciting if one's local representative is a neocon, as this would afford one the opportunity to discuss the insanity of Protestantism, but I'll take what I can get. He seems like a relatively intelligent fellow, actually.

...Or wait, am I being too personal here? Apparently, it's unpopular to bring attention to healthy lifestyles on this forum. Is everyone else, besides Onan, who's been outed as an actual person, a human-sized tapeworm strapped to an algorithmic transponder that renders all responses as permutations of the subset "disembodied ego"?

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
February 03, 2008, 12:26:21 AM
Quote
By mopping the floor while the sink continues to overflow, you're relegating your volunteer work to that very status. Attack the source of the problem instead.


I agree, but therein lies the problem. What is the source? The source is the disunity and attitudes of the smart people with money in this country, because the rest are inert slobs who vote for options that are designed to hide the truth.

We need a revolution in values, which requires a cultural revolution, which requires a philosophical revolution.


Re: Is democracy really the problem?
February 03, 2008, 01:51:48 AM
Quote

I agree, but therein lies the problem. What is the source? The source is the disunity and attitudes of the smart people with money in this country, because the rest are inert slobs who vote for options that are designed to hide the truth.

We need a revolution in values, which requires a cultural revolution, which requires a philosophical revolution.




How do we accomplish this IRL? We either:

1) Convince those in positions of power of the necessity of adherence to Truth, in which case
 a) They begin operating accordingly
 b) They lose confidence in their ability to lead,
     which in renders the opportunity to:

2) Accept positions of power ourselves. Democracy isn't very hard to figure out. Hitler was voted into office, which set the precent for abolishing democracy through manipulation of its own rules. Of course, Nazism is still populism, and therein lies its failure. Nevertheless, such steps would be necessary to clear the playing field and introduce the sense of Possibility in an otherwise crystallized society. This would be the initial "pruning" stage after which total damage could be assessed and amended accordingly.

3) Work from within parallel institutions. Academia is an excellent place to start, especially since one need to be particularly intelligent to qualify for professorship (no offense to those with such aspirations). Aligning oneself, loosely, to certain advocacy groups might also prove advantageous. Talk to well-intentioned entrepreneurs. These are various people with pieces of the puzzle who will never get it 100%. These are the Vaisya, and they must be handled with the utmost care. Like very stupid animals. If one makes any sudden movements, they'll spiral off into reactionary behavior. But for the most part, they're dedicated to their specialized tasks.


Re: Is democracy really the problem?
February 03, 2008, 01:28:27 PM
I think we need a thought "movement" like the idea of communism, idea of capitalism, idea of anti-monarchism, etc. Something simple and compelling that is a vision of a new society avoiding the failure of the old.

This will occur outside politics, and then be brought into it by the empowered voters demanding it.

That's the only way around the corporate, religious, and Crowdist oligarchy.

Re: Is democracy really the problem?
February 04, 2008, 04:07:27 PM
In my oppinion, one of the the main problems is that the human race did not evolve to be a race that spread out through the entire world and lived in mass populations. Anarcho-Primitivism is my ideal form (or lack thereof) of government.

Seeing as how that is next to impossible, though, I would have to say that one thing that could help Democracy out is to spend more money on education and also make people earn their right to vote.

The Schooling process would be made much more difficult. There would be no consequences for dropping out.

The amount of students who drop out because of the higher standards would save the state a lot of resources, and help out with the lofty costs of an education system such as this.

The education/hiring process for teachers would need to be completley revamped. Teachers would need to be individuals who could instill a lust for learning/self understanding/improvement in the children.

Charismatic teachers who knew what the fuck they were talking about and could be proper role models for developing children are of the utmost importance.

Students spend more than one year with their teachers. Rather than just being some random fuck who the students have to put up with for a year, the Teacher becomes a friend and mentor.

I suppose this is somewhat similar to the idea of philosopher-kings, except for the fact that instead of being in a position of power in the classic definition of it, they are in a position to mold the children/young adults into the people who they will someday be.

Sorry if this post made no sense whatsoever, I havent been sleeping much recently. Feel free to tear it apart, though. Criticism is the best way to learn.